one more video format is exactly what Adobe needs.
the more fragmented "web video" format is the better for Flash.
Let's hope the HTML5 standard adds support for all video formats.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The standards don't endorse video formats. This is just another reason the web DOES need flash even if it is an absolute turd on the mac. Maybe Apple and Adobe can work together for once and fix it instead of all this rallying to kill flash
Why H264 can't be a part of Open web? It is by any definition an open standard.
Now if you are talking about "the free web", then yeah it's probably not the best option out there.
Please don't obfuscate the debate with semantics.
Being an ISO standard is meaningless. Microsoft's C#, .NET, and VC-1 codec (used in WMV) are all ISO standards also, which means to many people they are "open" just like h264 is.
Let's be realistic. They're not. They're standardized and a committee controls what goes in and out of it, but they are not truly open. An open web means anyone can do anything. It's wide open. Forcing people to pay money to do things is not open.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The standards don't endorse video formats. This is just another reason the web DOES need flash even if it is an absolute turd on the mac. Maybe Apple and Adobe can work together for once and fix it instead of all this rallying to kill flash
Which is why I hope HTML5 standard will just define why the video tag has to support.
They're making a concerted effort at reducing the fragmentation. Part of Android's problem was it developed so rapidly with so many partners that it did fragment quite a bit.
They are, but it's still an issue and an uphill battle for Android-based devices and backs up his stats. Plus, you asked, "Where do you get your numbers?", not, "Do you think that will be the case in a few years?"
I have no faith that any Android-based devices will be getting updates 3 years after their launch right when the update is available. The Moto Droid got version 2.1 last month(?) while the Nexus One had it the first week of January? Imagine if Apple did that with the iPhone.
They are, but it's still an issue and an uphill battle for Android-based devices. I have no faith that any Android-based devices will be getting updates 3 years after their launch right when the update is available.
The Moto Droid got version 2.1 last month(?) while the Nexus One had it the first week of January? Imagine if Apple did that with the iPhone.
If it's that big a deal, put something like Cyanogen on it. It's dead easy.
I've got an HTC Magic and HTC Dream/G1 running Android 2.1 on them in the office for testing.
Apple has a fragmented market also. If you look at OS stats, there's still tons of 2.x out there (mostly iPods).
At least Android doesn't charge for updates, right?
The differences between 1.6/2.0/2.1 are overstated for the most part. If you actually look at the SDK, they incrementally add some nice features but it's not huge. 2.2 will be a different story.
Being an ISO standard is meaningless. Microsoft's C#, .NET, and VC-1 codec (used in WMV) are all ISO standards also, which means to many people they are "open" just like h264 is.
Let's be realistic. They're not. They're standardized and a committee controls what goes in and out of it, but they are not truly open. An open web means anyone can do anything. It's wide open. Forcing people to pay money to do things is not open.
looks to me you are the one twisting the meaning of "open".
Being an ISO standard is an important step of being open.
forcing people to pay money to do things is simply not free.
Why H264 can't be a part of Open web? It is by any definition an open standard
The W3C has strict requirements for technologies and standards it endorses. One of them is that they must be royality free, something which H.264 isn't. It's out of question that with the current licensing H.264 can be regarded as a candidate for the <video> tag that's why heavy users of H.264 have been pushing in the working groups so hard for leaving the baseline video codec undefined.
looks to me you are the one twisting the meaning of "open".
Being an ISO standard is an important step of being open.
forcing people to pay money to do things is simply not free.
I'm not twisting anything.
It's like having an open house then choosing who you let in and charging them admission. It's not open if you do that.
It's like having open source code, but only letting people who pay money access the code. It's not open if you do that.
h264 is a standard, but it's sure as hell not open. The people who call it open are twisting the meaning. Look at the wiki for h264...nowhere does it say "open". It's not open, it's just an ISO standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H264
Apple has a fragmented market also. If you look at OS stats, there's still tons of 2.x out there (mostly iPods).
At least Android doesn't charge for updates, right?
Consumer choosing not to install their FREE iPhone OS update to their phone isn't the problem, the problem with fragmentation are NEW devices being shipped with an OLD Android OS version and not getting the ability at all or or only after a very long time.
Every single iPhone ever shipped has been able to update to the latest OS version at the same time as all other iPhones. The only variance on that is iPhone OS v3.0 came out a day or two before the iPhone 3GS went on sale last year, but I doubt you'd call that fragmentation.
For the first time this year, after 3 years of continuous updates along with every other iPhone they are finally discontinuing support for the G1 iPhone. You'll have a hard arguing that stopping support after 3 years is unreasonable.
Consumer choosing not to install their FREE iPhone OS update to their phone isn't the problem, the problem with fragmentation are NEW devices being shipped with an OLD Android OS version and not getting the ability at all or or only after a very long time.
Every single iPhone ever shipped has been able to update to the latest OS version at the same time as all other iPhones. The only variance on that is iPhone OS v3.0 came out a day or two before the iPhone 3GS went on sale last year, but I doubt you'd call that fragmentation.
For the first time this year, after 3 years of continuous updates along with every other iPhone they are finally discontinuing support for the G1 iPhone. You'll have a hard arguing that stopping support after 3 years is unreasonable.
The fact that the iPhone OS is theoretically the same on all devices isn't really true. Try running an augmented reality app on an iPhone 2G/3G or try multitasking on the iPhone 2G/3G. You can't.
Yes, Apple is obviously doing a better job at keeping the base on the same platform. It's easy when you're the only shop in town. It's a fundamental business decision -- Android is open, Apple is closed. Closed affords more control.
But, as I said, it's not THAT big of a deal. The hardware capabilities are the main sticking point, not the firmware level. All Android phones have more memory and more baseline capabilities (compass, gps) than are afforded to iPhones, in a lot of ways it's easier.
I still build my apps targeting Android 1.5 and I've not yet run into any limitations in the SDK.
"anybody to implement", provided they have the means to pay for it. That's not open.
It's a misnomer.
"open" is usually defined as "free of obstruction" or "affording free passage".
Actually that is as close to open as you'll get right now.
You are the one who said that H.264 and WebM is so "similar". Is Google going to pay for it when one day MPEG-LA realized that WebM is infringing on their patents?
After reading some technical explanations on this codec it seems like the Google engineers are tired of polishing this turd and are hoping that making it open will further it's development. This isn't a gift to the open web, it's a cry for help.
Actually that is as close to open as you'll get right now.
You are the one who said that H.264 and WebM is so "similar". Is Google going to pay for it when one day MPEG-LA realized that WebM is infringing on their patents?
All of the modern codecs are extremely similar. They all work off the same fundamental ideas (except Dirac which is wavelet-based).
If MPEG-LA (of which Apple is a major member) wants to deal with the PR nightmare and risk the complete overhaul of software patents (which is long overdue), then they're welcome to go to war with Google over the patents. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot and having everyone muttering "Appholes" under their breath when they're forced to pay per download of Firefox, Opera, etc because MPEG-LA has some overly general, ridiculous software patent.
In a lot of ways, I hope they try. The image of Google trying to make everything free for users and Apple wanting everyone to pay for something ridiculously obvious would go a long way to further damaging Apple's brand.
You are the one who said that H.264 and WebM is so "similar". Is Google going to pay for it when one day MPEG-LA realized that WebM is infringing on their patents?
ON2 has also been long in the codec business and Google acquired all of its patents. This could become really interesting really fast should the MPEG-LA decide to step on Google's toes. I don't know though about similarities besides maybe some general mathematical approaches. Certainly not enough that a H.264 decoder could process a VP8 video, but more general programmable DSPs might be able to handle it.
After reading some technical explanations on this codec it seems like the Google engineers are tired of polishing this turd and are hoping that making it open will further it's development. This isn't a gift to the open web, it's a cry for help.
Interesting. Can you link to the technical explanation? I haven't had the time to occupy myself with this topic deeply yet.
ON2 has also been long in the codec business and Google acquired all of its patents. This could become really interesting really fast should the MPEG-LA decide to step on Google's toes.
This is a really important point, I think.
The reason Palm got away with things like multi-touch on their products and Apple never countersued is they both know they're violating eachother's patents. Palm (and now HP) has a warchest of patents (patents so valuable, several companies offered $800M alone just for the patents). It was a detente...Palm didn't sue Apple and Apple didn't sue Palm because of the warchest of patents each had.
It's pretty much the same now with On2/Google and MPEG-LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno
Interesting. Can you link to the technical explanation? I haven't had the time to occupy myself with this topic deeply yet.
Why are you assuming he's serious? It's a pretty blatant troll.
The fact that the iPhone OS is theoretically the same on all devices isn't really true.
No one said it was true. Each evolution of the iPhone HW requires new software for it to work. The difference is the stepped evolution and balanced released across all iPhones for 3 years compared to diverse and complex ecosystem that Google has unfortunately unleashed and it now trying to corral.
There is no Android user that has that confidence in their device like iPhone users. When Froyo hits will the HTC Dream get that day... or ever? What about the Moto Droid? And so on.... I think you'd be hard pressed to find an iPhone 3G or 3GS user than doesn't think that they will get v4.0 by the time the G4 iPhone hits the market, and those that are unsure are exactly the "techtarded" consumer base that Android is having trouble wrangling in because of their complex setup that offers little to no consumer security.
PS: I had the worst time the other day pushing video clips via Dropbox to a friend with a Moto Droid. The codec support sucks! even using H.264 with AAC using different encoders resulted in very different results, from nothing playing, to just audio, to just video. Apple has a long history of stingy codec support but I know if I work within their spec sheet listing the video will play fine.
Comments
one more video format is exactly what Adobe needs.
the more fragmented "web video" format is the better for Flash.
Let's hope the HTML5 standard adds support for all video formats.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The standards don't endorse video formats. This is just another reason the web DOES need flash even if it is an absolute turd on the mac. Maybe Apple and Adobe can work together for once and fix it instead of all this rallying to kill flash
Why H264 can't be a part of Open web? It is by any definition an open standard.
Now if you are talking about "the free web", then yeah it's probably not the best option out there.
Please don't obfuscate the debate with semantics.
Being an ISO standard is meaningless. Microsoft's C#, .NET, and VC-1 codec (used in WMV) are all ISO standards also, which means to many people they are "open" just like h264 is.
Let's be realistic. They're not. They're standardized and a committee controls what goes in and out of it, but they are not truly open. An open web means anyone can do anything. It's wide open. Forcing people to pay money to do things is not open.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The standards don't endorse video formats. This is just another reason the web DOES need flash even if it is an absolute turd on the mac. Maybe Apple and Adobe can work together for once and fix it instead of all this rallying to kill flash
Which is why I hope HTML5 standard will just define why the video tag has to support.
They're making a concerted effort at reducing the fragmentation. Part of Android's problem was it developed so rapidly with so many partners that it did fragment quite a bit.
They are, but it's still an issue and an uphill battle for Android-based devices and backs up his stats. Plus, you asked, "Where do you get your numbers?", not, "Do you think that will be the case in a few years?"
I have no faith that any Android-based devices will be getting updates 3 years after their launch right when the update is available. The Moto Droid got version 2.1 last month(?) while the Nexus One had it the first week of January? Imagine if Apple did that with the iPhone.
Which is why I hope HTML5 standard will just define why the video tag has to support.
I hope so also. In all likelihood, if this does happen, it'll be WebM.
It will never be h264. It's not possible.
They are, but it's still an issue and an uphill battle for Android-based devices. I have no faith that any Android-based devices will be getting updates 3 years after their launch right when the update is available.
The Moto Droid got version 2.1 last month(?) while the Nexus One had it the first week of January? Imagine if Apple did that with the iPhone.
If it's that big a deal, put something like Cyanogen on it. It's dead easy.
I've got an HTC Magic and HTC Dream/G1 running Android 2.1 on them in the office for testing.
Apple has a fragmented market also. If you look at OS stats, there's still tons of 2.x out there (mostly iPods).
At least Android doesn't charge for updates, right?
The differences between 1.6/2.0/2.1 are overstated for the most part. If you actually look at the SDK, they incrementally add some nice features but it's not huge. 2.2 will be a different story.
Please don't obfuscate the debate with semantics.
Being an ISO standard is meaningless. Microsoft's C#, .NET, and VC-1 codec (used in WMV) are all ISO standards also, which means to many people they are "open" just like h264 is.
Let's be realistic. They're not. They're standardized and a committee controls what goes in and out of it, but they are not truly open. An open web means anyone can do anything. It's wide open. Forcing people to pay money to do things is not open.
looks to me you are the one twisting the meaning of "open".
Being an ISO standard is an important step of being open.
forcing people to pay money to do things is simply not free.
Why H264 can't be a part of Open web? It is by any definition an open standard
The W3C has strict requirements for technologies and standards it endorses. One of them is that they must be royality free, something which H.264 isn't. It's out of question that with the current licensing H.264 can be regarded as a candidate for the <video> tag that's why heavy users of H.264 have been pushing in the working groups so hard for leaving the baseline video codec undefined.
EDIT: Clarifications, grammar
looks to me you are the one twisting the meaning of "open".
Being an ISO standard is an important step of being open.
forcing people to pay money to do things is simply not free.
I'm not twisting anything.
It's like having an open house then choosing who you let in and charging them admission. It's not open if you do that.
It's like having open source code, but only letting people who pay money access the code. It's not open if you do that.
h264 is a standard, but it's sure as hell not open. The people who call it open are twisting the meaning. Look at the wiki for h264...nowhere does it say "open". It's not open, it's just an ISO standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H264
Look at it this way: HOW is h264 "open"?
Look at it this way: HOW is h264 "open"?
Its specifications are open for anybody to implement, just not free of charge.
It's specifications are open for anybody to implement, just not free of charge.
"anybody to implement", provided they have the means to pay for it. That's not open.
It's a misnomer.
"open" is usually defined as "free of obstruction" or "affording free passage".
Apple has a fragmented market also. If you look at OS stats, there's still tons of 2.x out there (mostly iPods).
At least Android doesn't charge for updates, right?
Consumer choosing not to install their FREE iPhone OS update to their phone isn't the problem, the problem with fragmentation are NEW devices being shipped with an OLD Android OS version and not getting the ability at all or or only after a very long time.
Every single iPhone ever shipped has been able to update to the latest OS version at the same time as all other iPhones. The only variance on that is iPhone OS v3.0 came out a day or two before the iPhone 3GS went on sale last year, but I doubt you'd call that fragmentation.
For the first time this year, after 3 years of continuous updates along with every other iPhone they are finally discontinuing support for the G1 iPhone. You'll have a hard arguing that stopping support after 3 years is unreasonable.
Consumer choosing not to install their FREE iPhone OS update to their phone isn't the problem, the problem with fragmentation are NEW devices being shipped with an OLD Android OS version and not getting the ability at all or or only after a very long time.
Every single iPhone ever shipped has been able to update to the latest OS version at the same time as all other iPhones. The only variance on that is iPhone OS v3.0 came out a day or two before the iPhone 3GS went on sale last year, but I doubt you'd call that fragmentation.
For the first time this year, after 3 years of continuous updates along with every other iPhone they are finally discontinuing support for the G1 iPhone. You'll have a hard arguing that stopping support after 3 years is unreasonable.
The fact that the iPhone OS is theoretically the same on all devices isn't really true. Try running an augmented reality app on an iPhone 2G/3G or try multitasking on the iPhone 2G/3G. You can't.
Yes, Apple is obviously doing a better job at keeping the base on the same platform. It's easy when you're the only shop in town. It's a fundamental business decision -- Android is open, Apple is closed. Closed affords more control.
But, as I said, it's not THAT big of a deal. The hardware capabilities are the main sticking point, not the firmware level. All Android phones have more memory and more baseline capabilities (compass, gps) than are afforded to iPhones, in a lot of ways it's easier.
I still build my apps targeting Android 1.5 and I've not yet run into any limitations in the SDK.
"anybody to implement", provided they have the means to pay for it. That's not open.
It's a misnomer.
"open" is usually defined as "free of obstruction" or "affording free passage".
Actually that is as close to open as you'll get right now.
You are the one who said that H.264 and WebM is so "similar". Is Google going to pay for it when one day MPEG-LA realized that WebM is infringing on their patents?
Actually that is as close to open as you'll get right now.
You are the one who said that H.264 and WebM is so "similar". Is Google going to pay for it when one day MPEG-LA realized that WebM is infringing on their patents?
All of the modern codecs are extremely similar. They all work off the same fundamental ideas (except Dirac which is wavelet-based).
If MPEG-LA (of which Apple is a major member) wants to deal with the PR nightmare and risk the complete overhaul of software patents (which is long overdue), then they're welcome to go to war with Google over the patents. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot and having everyone muttering "Appholes" under their breath when they're forced to pay per download of Firefox, Opera, etc because MPEG-LA has some overly general, ridiculous software patent.
In a lot of ways, I hope they try. The image of Google trying to make everything free for users and Apple wanting everyone to pay for something ridiculously obvious would go a long way to further damaging Apple's brand.
You are the one who said that H.264 and WebM is so "similar". Is Google going to pay for it when one day MPEG-LA realized that WebM is infringing on their patents?
ON2 has also been long in the codec business and Google acquired all of its patents. This could become really interesting really fast should the MPEG-LA decide to step on Google's toes. I don't know though about similarities besides maybe some general mathematical approaches. Certainly not enough that a H.264 decoder could process a VP8 video, but more general programmable DSPs might be able to handle it.
After reading some technical explanations on this codec it seems like the Google engineers are tired of polishing this turd and are hoping that making it open will further it's development. This isn't a gift to the open web, it's a cry for help.
Interesting. Can you link to the technical explanation? I haven't had the time to occupy myself with this topic deeply yet.
ON2 has also been long in the codec business and Google acquired all of its patents. This could become really interesting really fast should the MPEG-LA decide to step on Google's toes.
This is a really important point, I think.
The reason Palm got away with things like multi-touch on their products and Apple never countersued is they both know they're violating eachother's patents. Palm (and now HP) has a warchest of patents (patents so valuable, several companies offered $800M alone just for the patents). It was a detente...Palm didn't sue Apple and Apple didn't sue Palm because of the warchest of patents each had.
It's pretty much the same now with On2/Google and MPEG-LA.
Interesting. Can you link to the technical explanation? I haven't had the time to occupy myself with this topic deeply yet.
Why are you assuming he's serious? It's a pretty blatant troll.
The fact that the iPhone OS is theoretically the same on all devices isn't really true.
No one said it was true. Each evolution of the iPhone HW requires new software for it to work. The difference is the stepped evolution and balanced released across all iPhones for 3 years compared to diverse and complex ecosystem that Google has unfortunately unleashed and it now trying to corral.
There is no Android user that has that confidence in their device like iPhone users. When Froyo hits will the HTC Dream get that day... or ever? What about the Moto Droid? And so on.... I think you'd be hard pressed to find an iPhone 3G or 3GS user than doesn't think that they will get v4.0 by the time the G4 iPhone hits the market, and those that are unsure are exactly the "techtarded" consumer base that Android is having trouble wrangling in because of their complex setup that offers little to no consumer security.
PS: I had the worst time the other day pushing video clips via Dropbox to a friend with a Moto Droid. The codec support sucks! even using H.264 with AAC using different encoders resulted in very different results, from nothing playing, to just audio, to just video. Apple has a long history of stingy codec support but I know if I work within their spec sheet listing the video will play fine.